Closed whedon closed 2 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @ArikaLZ, @samuel-rosa it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews πΏ
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.21 s (329.9 files/s, 125358.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG 2 0 15 8419
Python 29 1066 2633 2811
Jupyter Notebook 13 0 9542 641
YAML 11 7 14 319
Markdown 3 55 0 165
TeX 2 20 2 157
CSS 1 11 3 64
reStructuredText 5 67 89 58
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
make 1 6 6 16
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 69 1240 12305 12678
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '6983c40ec08e3a4710e59e13' was
gathered on 2021/06/02.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
James Gaboardi 35 1217 408 3.60
Pedro Camargo 1 2 2 0.01
Serge 1 7 14 0.05
Serge Rey 23 2663 296 6.56
Xin Feng 27 21564 353 48.61
eli knaap 9 39 17963 39.93
rwei5 6 304 254 1.24
Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:
Author Rows Stability Age % in comments
James Gaboardi 934 76.7 11.3 4.60
Pedro Camargo 2 100.0 0.0 0.00
Serge Rey 2140 80.4 6.4 9.58
Xin Feng 3384 15.7 6.0 7.03
eli knaap 18 46.2 4.3 27.78
rwei5 32 10.5 22.3 18.75
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- None
MISSING DOIs
- 10.1080/13658810600665111 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient Regionalization Techniques for Socio-economic Geographical Units Using Minimum Spanning Trees
- 10.2307/1907301 may be a valid DOI for title: Optimum utilization of the transportation system
- 10.1016/j.omega.2019.102176 may be a valid DOI for title: Contemporary optimization application through geographic information systems
- 10.1080/13658816.2020.1759806 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient Regionalization for Spatially Explicit Neighborhood Delineation
- 10.2307/622300 may be a valid DOI for title: A Geographical Solution to Scale and Aggregation Problems in Region-building, Partitioning and Spatial Modelling
- 10.1068/a270425 may be a valid DOI for title: Algorithms for Reengineering 1991 Census Geography
- 10.1007/978-3-642-03647-7_11 may be a valid DOI for title: PySAL: A Python library of spatial analytical methods
- 10.3390/ijgi4020815 may be a valid DOI for title: Open geospatial analytics with PySAL
- 10.31219/osf.io/yzt2p may be a valid DOI for title: Spatially-encouraged spectral clustering: a technique for blending map typologies and regionalization
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00743.x is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @xf37 it seems that several DOIs are missing from your submission and one is invalid as you can see above. Please fix this issue.
:wave: @samuel-rosa , please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @ArikaLZ, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
@whedon unfortunately I will not be able to conclude the review in due time. I have just been hit by a truckload of demands at my university. I hope that you find a suitable reviewer.
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@whedon commands
@whedon unfortunately I will not be able to conclude the review in due time. I have just been hit by a truckload of demands at my university. I hope that you find a suitable reviewer.
Hi @samuel-rosa that was an automated reminder from Joss robot (@whedon).
Just to be clear, if still interested in reviewing and you need more time to review this is totally understandable and we are very flexible especially during the codiv-19 era. On the other hand, if you decided that you cannot or do not want to review this is also understandable. Please let me know.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @xf37 it seems that several DOIs are missing from your submission and one is invalid as you can see above. Please fix this issue.
We have fixed the issue with missing DOIs.
Hi, @nickbearman, @ryankarlos, @ystouthart I think this submission matches your interests.
Would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?
We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
@whedon remove samuel-rosa as reviewer
OK, samuel-rosa is no longer a reviewer
@whedon remove @samuel-rosa as reviewer
OK, @samuel-rosa is no longer a reviewer
Yes, happy to review. Just to check, I am not actually going to be able to run the package to test it out (not currently having the time/space to setup a Python environment), is this a major issue? If so, happy to pass the review to someone else. Very happy to complete the rest of the review elements.
Hi @nickbearman thank you very much for you interest and quick response!
I am afraid it is important to test the functionality of the package as stated in https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Reviewers are expected to install the software they are reviewing and to verify the core functionality of the software.
@vissarion no problem. Sometime I will be able to setup a Python environment, but not for this one. Please do remove me as reviewer. Thanks.
@vissarion I really would like to be able to review this manuscript. In fact, I am very curious to know more about the journal and plan to submit the manuscript of one of my students. But I have become so busy now that I won't be able to help. I suggest that you invite my colleague @AlexandreWadoux.
Best.
Thanks @samuel-rosa for your recommendation.
Hi, @AlexandreWadoux, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?
Hello @vissarion, sorry but as a principle I never review for journals publishing the name of the reviewers. I do not want to be held responsible if a poor paper of software package is accepted despite a recommendation to reject.
@AlexandreWadoux I understand your concern. Thanks for the quick reply!
As a side note, in JOSS a submission is accepted only if all reviewers recommend acceptance according to those criteria https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Hi, @glennon, @davyneven, @huanfachen, would you be willing to help reviewing this submission for JOSS?
Hello @vissarion, thanks for approaching https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3330#issuecomment-865692359 . Unfortunately Iβm not going to have the time in the coming months so feel free to remove me from the list.
Hello, @antoniomedrano, @NiklasAsselmann, @kramea would any of you be willing to help reviewing this submission for JOSS?
@vissarion I found you a second reviewer! @tmickleydoyle has kindly agreed to review this for us. Assuming that this is acceptable, I'll go ahead and set him up now...
@whedon add @tmickleydoyle as reviewer
OK, @tmickleydoyle is now a reviewer
@whedon re-invite @tmickleydoyle as reviewer
The reviewer already has a pending invite.
@tmickleydoyle please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations
@tmickleydoyle β This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3330
so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
π Thank you all for the invite
I was reading over the checklist of items but I am not able to interact with the markdown by checking the checklist items. I will continue to work on the checklist async. π
Hello again π
I was looking for the link to the developer docs so I could start reading and testing the different functionality of the code. Are they linked in the README of the repo?
Thank you π
@tmickleydoyle Yes, that's the one: https://pysal.org/spopt/
@jGaboardi π Thank you for the link, but I am still having a hard time finding the API docs.
@vissarion I found you a second reviewer! @tmickleydoyle has kindly agreed to review this for us. Assuming that this is acceptable, I'll go ahead and set him up now...
Thanks @arfon and sorry for the late reply, I was offline the last weeks.
Thanks @arfon and sorry for the late reply, I was offline the last weeks.
No worries at all. Hopefully this is a good outcome (finding a second reviewer π)
Hey all. Hurricane Ida has impacted my access to the internet. I will try to get my review completed in the next two weeks. Sorry for the delay.
Hey all. Hurricane Ida has impacted my access to the internet. I will try to get my review completed in the next two weeks. Sorry for the delay.
Of course, no rush at all @tmickleydoyle. Please focus on life matters right now and work on the review when you are ready!
Hey @jGaboardi π
I opened an issue in the spopt repo about a challenge I am experiencing when trying to import MCLP
. Thank you π
@tmickleydoyle Thank you opening the issue. The reason the import is failing is because the locate
module is not part of v0.1.1
release that is under review here. The original JOSS paper submission back in May (I believe) by @xf37 focused on regionalization because that was the only module in spopt
at the time, with no locate
functionality (the locate
module is merged into code base but it is not in a release yet and is not published to PyPI or conda-forge). Since then there has been a v0.1.2
release and several major occurrences:
locate
module.Due to these things I have some questions (and general musings) about moving forward with this submission:
locate
module?locate
?Pinging some other PySAL core devs for thoughts & advice on this.
@jGaboardi https://github.com/jGaboardi Thanks for taking care of this. I am back to work now. I am fine with both, either keeping this version or creating a new release. Just let me know your thoughts @gegen07 https://github.com/gegen07 (+ @qszhao https://github.com/qszhao & @ljwolf https://github.com/ljwolf) @sjsrey https://github.com/sjsrey, @knaaptime https://github.com/knaaptime
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:45 PM James Gaboardi @.***> wrote:
@tmickleydoyle https://github.com/tmickleydoyle Thank you opening the issue. The reason the import is failing is because the locate module is not part of v0.1.1 release that is under review here. The original JOSS paper submission back in May (I believe) by @xf37 https://github.com/xf37 focused on regionalization because that was the only module in spopt at the time, with no locate functionality (the locate module is merged into code base but it is not in a release yet and is not published to PyPI or conda-forge). Since then there has been a v0.1.2 release and several major occurrences:
- @xf37 https://github.com/xf37 accepted a position as Asst. Professor.
- We had an incredibly talented GSoC student @.*** https://github.com/gegen07) that contributed the locate module.
- I accepted a new position.
Due to these things I have some questions (and general musings) about moving forward with this submission:
- Should we create a fresh release and rework the submission to include the locate module?
- @xf37 https://github.com/xf37, do you still have time to spend addressing the concerns of the reviewers for this submission?
- @gegen07 https://github.com/gegen07 @.*** https://github.com/qszhao & @ljwolf https://github.com/ljwolf), would you like to contribute to this paper if we rework it to include locate?
- Also, I need to confirm with my current employer that I can still be involved with my current affiliation.
Pinging some other PySAL core devs for thoughts & advice on this.
- @sjsrey https://github.com/sjsrey, @knaaptime https://github.com/knaaptime, @slumnitz https://github.com/slumnitz, @TaylorOshan https://github.com/TaylorOshan, @jeffcsauer https://github.com/jeffcsauer, @martinfleis https://github.com/martinfleis, @darribas https://github.com/darribas
β You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3330#issuecomment-920465664, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEAWVDH3MLCNWM4NVWBRODTUCEV2LANCNFSM4567K6IQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
--
Dr. Xin Feng San Francisco, CA 94132, USA Email: @.***
@arfon @vissarion Do you have any thoughts on this? @xf37 is OK for reworking the manuscript and we would like @gegen07 to get onboard to highlight his achievements in the locate
module.
@jGaboardi if locate
module is the best way to address the review issue I agree to work on including it (either in this release or in a fresh one) and also update the JOSS paper text.
@jGaboardi how major is the revision / rework you are working on? Does it make sense for a reviewer that didn't start the review yet to start it now or is it better to wait until you finish https://github.com/pysal/spopt/issues/196 ?
@vissarion Thanks for touching base back with this! It would be better for that reviewer to wait until pysal/spopt#196 is complete. We are working on it now and will have the revisions merged and fresh release including the new functionality up soon.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@xf37<!--end-author-handle-- (Xin Feng) Repository: https://github.com/pysal/spopt Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.4.1 Editor: !--editor-->@vissarion<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @tmickleydoyle, @apulverizer Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6638721
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@apulverizer & @tmickleydoyle , please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @vissarion know.
β¨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest β¨
Review checklist for @apulverizer
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @tmickleydoyle
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper